how about Brunell

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Hey y'all,
I've been lurking here for a while now and I appreciate how much everyone cares about our Saints. I've been a fan since the early 80's and I've never had so much hope going into the season as ...

Hey y'all,
I've been lurking here for a while now and I appreciate how much everyone cares about our Saints. I've been a fan since the early 80's and I've never had so much hope going into the season as i did this year. :(

I see both sides of the AB debate. I think LummOx summed up my opinion; i.e. that he could be a great quarterback but not in the current Saints' system.

Now that Mark Brunell is out of a job in Jax, it seems to me he could be the answer for the Saints. A veteran leader who has performed well throughout his career despite not always being surrounded by great talent, he's got the arm (at least I think he still does) to get the ball down field to our speedy wideouts, and the leadership skills to get both offense and defense to perform at their best. OK, so he's not going to be around forever, but the Saints need a leader at QB now so they can make a playoff run this year. I know the D is pretty sad, but with an offense that could run some time off the clock and score some points, I think the Saints could win quite a few games while waiting for Howard and some of the other defensive players to come back.

The only reason Brunell is not starting any more in Jax is because they have given up on their season. It's too early for the Saints to do the same with the talent they have on offense.

What do y'all think? By the way, now that I've used this text editor with its tiny font, I understand why there are so many typos on this board. ;)

I think he\'d be a good choice if we had a very young QB that needed a few years to develop, like a Chris Simms (who we tried to trade up and take).
But he\'s only marginally better than what we have now. If Brooks went down this week, I\'d be at his doorstep begging him to come here.
If we had Brunnell 4 years ago I think we would have been more successful than we have been.

This is just my opinion, but I think the substitution of a LH QB into an offense that is versed with a RH QB is an added angle that a struggling offense doesn\'t need to have. I\'m speaking from experience and it throws an added wrench into the offensive chemistry if only for a few games. If Brunell is only looked at as a short term solution, would he be worth spending a pick or trading a player for? If the idea is to plug in a replacement until the future is decided, then Bouman is as good an option as any given he already knows our offense to some degree. If we were making a deal on a younger guy that they want to prepare for the future, if that would be the case, then it would make more sense.

You know, I\'ve spent a fair amount of time thinking on this very subject.
If we had someone like Dr.Z or WhoDat as our GM, I think we could do it.

Think about it like this: (and these are ALL MAJOR IFs)

1. If we could get Brunnell, we automatically get a veteren leader with something to prove who wants to finish his career strong, ala Drew Bledsoe in Buffalo last year.

2. If we could trade T-Sucky and a 2nd day pick to get him, we\'d be in great shape by getting rid of that pricey albatross.

3. With Brunnell, we finish 6-10 or better so we should be able to move up in the draft, or move down and collect draft picks.

4. We shop Brooks hard in the offseason. There\'s a fair chance that Chicago, Dallas, San Fran or somebody will want him. There\'s a better than average change we could get 3-4 picks for him and some second day picks.

5. Brunnell gives us the most precious commodity of all: time. With Brunnell, we\'re in no hurry to start a rookie and we give any rookie we take a great mentor to help him learn the ropes so that when Eli or whoever starts for us, he\'s ready.

6. With Brunnell, we stay competitive.

7. With Brunnell, hopefully Haz has a Mora style meltdown and quits in protest.

The downside would be that Jacksonville would not give him up without getting draft picks. He\'s no long term solution, he wouldn\'t be fluent with our offense for a few weeks at best to make us any more competetive than we already are. The players don\'t know him and he hasn\'t earned the right to be in their faces as a leader, so what leadership he could offer would liekly be by example. It would do nothing for this year but cost us a draft pick, and it would likely do nothing for the next few years either. If we were in position to make a definite run at the playoffs and be a contender it would make sense, but we have more than one hole on this team. If we were to sign him strictly as a free agent in the offseason and try to re-circle the wagons for a few seasons then I would be on board. I just don\'t see an upset to spending picks on an aging veteran when we aren\'t in position to utilize what he would bring to us.

I agree. There is no point in trying to make a stop-gap correction like this during the season - especially when Brunell is going to be on FA in the offseason. It is too late for a new guy to come in and improve the team this year. Sure, we might get a couple more wins out of the team with someone like Brunell, but why would we want to go 4-12 with him versus 2-14 without him.

As far as next year, Brunell might be an ok pickup, but he\'s losing his skills and I\'d rather bring along a younger QB instead of watching Brunell fade.

I really don\'t see any point in brining in another QB, even in FA. We have 2 good QB\'s right now. Brunell is on his way down, which is the only reason that the boys upstairs would be interested (based on past pick-ups). I think that we see what we can do with the QB\'s we have. (That also means signing Bournman to another year).
As for compairing Brunell against Beldsoe.... WTF??? No comparison. Beldsoe was a probowler. Brunell is average. (I see your logic, it was just a bad comparison).